|
Gerund posted:disagreeing with people in The Debate & Discussion Forum Of Something Awful Dot Com happens all the time and should not be seen as some shocking abuse of power It's not an abuse of power, but like, if the mods are way off what the posters in the thread think it's not like the thread will be good. Like it wasn't a cspam leftist opinion vs a D&D centrism or something, it was just one guy making a lot of posts arguing with every other poster that the ongoing events weren't a real big deal while apparently most everyone in D&D and in Cspam and everywhere else thought they were. Thats fine, he didn't morally do anything wrong by having a different Opinon, but it's not like his dumb derail of him vs like 40 other people was super interesting to read.
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2021 18:14
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 10, 2024 17:56 |
|
|
ninja edit ^^^ Yearly "is this IK a good poster" certification then? ^^^Slow News Day posted:The problem isn't his ideology per se. The problem is his strong and obvious disdain for the majority of USPol posters. Just a year ago he was referring to USPol posters as "centrist shitbags" and gloating (about a failed thread) that liberals don't like it when others (i.e. leftists) "strike at the heart of their flawed worldview". I'm not gonna hell-dump his posts but they're pretty easy to find. The reason this has been a major problem is because someone who looks down on a group of people (i.e. liberals) cannot be expected to moderate that group's debates in a fair and unbiased way, especially when themselves and/or their own ideological allies are involved in those debates. This is an argument for paying to build robot moderators, and has no material relevance or evidence to any moderator action that has ever been taken. Gerund fucked around with this message at 18:19 on Jan 13, 2021 |
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2021 18:16
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:It's not an abuse of power, but like, if the mods are way off what the posters in the thread think it's not like the thread will be good. A damper on the thread's hyperbolic doomposting spiral is something that needs to happen a lot more often. I remember this exact same type of derail happening multiple times last year and the theme is always the same: a bad thing happens, a bunch of people decide that this is the end of days/this is the worst thing that's ever happened and adopt a stance of perpetually shocked moral outrage, and simultaneously decide that not only does a differing opinion not deserve any considered response but also it's offensive and not respectful to have a different opinion at all. E: and before someone accuses me of being calm hitler again, a) I'm as guilty of this as anyone (just not in this latest instance), and b) there are certainly opinions that do not deserve respect but "this isn't the worst thing a president has ever done" or "i don't think we're going to end up in a war with iran over this" don't fall into that category. The Oldest Man fucked around with this message at 18:22 on Jan 13, 2021 |
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2021 18:18
|
|
|
I'm fine with mods in discussions as long as they are fair about it, they are people with opinions. Majoran typically does the "I don't have to quote sources but you do or you get probed" which is a problem and multiple times The Steve goes "no longer talk about this topic, btw everyone on this side of the topic is dumb whiny wrong babies" which cross the line into abuse.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2021 18:22
|
|
|
Chiming in with my $0.02 as someone who is probably a centrist relative to the D&D spectrum (i.e. mostly aligned with Bernie's platform) and who has only really been active in D&D since June, so after the primaries and all the bad blood from then and earlier... Also I guess this is posting about posters but maybe posting about an IK is fair game for the thread? If not, I can delete this post or eat a probe or whatever Majorian's posts in USPOL about Favreau's claim that Trump inciting the capitol attack was the worst thing any POTUS has done were posts that I disagreed with pretty vehemently, not because I think there haven't been worse POTUS actions in our nation's detestable history, but because I thought they* were downplaying what the emerging evidence was pretty clearly showing was Trump's involvement and the danger posed by the insurrectionists both on the day of the failed coupu and in terms of further normalizing stochastic terrorism in the longer term, and I thought they were only selectively engaging with the posts presenting relatively weaker counter-arguments. I don't really think this was an intentional ploy on Majorian's part or anything, I just thought it was kind of weak debate BUT I don't at all think it was seriously bad posting, and even though I found the debate a mite frustrating, I think it was essentially an example of acceptable disagreement and argument within USPOL, on a particularly explosive and contentious subject. I can see how one could criticize an IK or mod for participating in such a debate at all, since that can muddy the waters between their duties and their posting, but IMO the mods already tend not to get too involved and I think the IKs do a pretty good job of clearly stating when they're posting with their "IK hat on" which might be sort of cringey/goofy but at least not ambiguous Taking a step back, I've thought Majorian has been a good IK from what I've observed. Do I agree with all of their posts? Absolutely not. Do I agree with all of their button pushes? Also no. But that's just as true for any IK, and I have noticed numerous debates where Majorian will concede points, accept alternative perspectives, walk back claims that are unsupported, etc. Taking a step even further back, I think the past few posts have demonstrated something that everyone needs to get out of their heads -- differences in ideology or political spectrum alignment aren't the driving factor in USPOL's or D&D's issues; just like coronavirus, lovely posting doesn't care about your ideology (don't think too hard about this analogy please). If you're here thinking that [posters from the other ideology] are the problem, that should be setting off big, blaring alarm bells for self-reflection about how you engage here (and probably with political media at large). And you don't have to think of this being in service of fulfilling some sort of impossible ideal of civil discourse or perfect argumentation, think of it in terms of the fact that you are hindering your own ability to persuade other people to see why [your ideology] is better. As many posters have testified, even though D&D is just a subforum with a troubled history on a comedy site with a troubled history, it DOES shape the politics of people who post and lurk here. I always feel shame after writing such a long, earnest post, is that just me? Time to wash it off with some USPOL slapfights  *I don't know Majorian's gender; I'm not saying 'they' in an attempt to dehumanize or disrespect at all, which I know sometimes happens
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2021 18:55
|
|
|
copy posted:I think I did a poor job expressing myself, and I am afraid I will again right now. I think the culture issue here is that people believe that they have actual enemies, not just rude posters, here who they need to remove. I think this belief is not unique to any specific group or political stance. I agree that standards need to be enforced consistently, which I specified in my post. I think that we should remove people who are actually violating rules, but I also think that the perception of disruption is not always proportionate to what posters are actually saying. People are also reacting to a poster's reputation and any built-up bad blood. So I also agree that this has nothing to do with political stance at this point. It just seems that way because these feelings seem to appear more commonly in people who view this as an in-group/out-group dynamic (i.e. people talking about "libs" or "nojoes" or w/e). I appreciate you restating this because I actually mostly agree with what you're saying here. I acknowledge I'm biased in saying/thinking this, but I do really believe this behavior is, well not "one-sided", but strongly disproportionately one group over the other. I could give a gently caress less if people who like to post like inflammatory assholes have a space to do that in, while we saw repeated near-revolts toward the mod staff because GE thread posters were told they can't go poo poo up the poliwonks thread. People literally justified this by complaining that it was wrong hat posters be given a hugbox where they don't have to face the reality of their support for Biden. Like I don't even care if USPOL was given over to poo poo posters and we were given a different usnews thread were we can have thoughtful discussion about the news.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2021 19:09
|
|
|
Sharks Eat Bear posted:
I agree with most of this post. Although, I don't think most anyone actually thinks that the bolded above is the case - outside some of the toxic posters, in this thread and uspol. I'm not even sure they actually believe it, it seems more like way to argue for breaking up the thread instead of just moderating it to keep down the poo poo-posting like it used to be back in the day. That's not to say that difference in ideology doesn't cause friction as well, but it's not the cause of the most of the toxic nonsense that happens in uspol.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2021 19:55
|
|
|
I am thrilled to see people who self-exiled to C-SPAM come in to say that D&D doesn't tolerate a wide variety of views (their views). It's a self-evidently ridiculous position to anyone who reads D&D and C-SPAM. I don't like Majorian as IK but this is because I feel that they try to win arguments with mod buttons, not because of their ideology, which like most people here is barely any different from mine.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2021 20:26
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:I appreciate you restating this because I actually mostly agree with what you're saying here. I acknowledge I'm biased in saying/thinking this, but I do really believe this behavior is, well not "one-sided", but strongly disproportionately one group over the other. I could give a gently caress less if people who like to post like inflammatory assholes have a space to do that in, while we saw repeated near-revolts toward the mod staff because GE thread posters were told they can't go poo poo up the poliwonks thread. People literally justified this by complaining that it was wrong hat posters be given a hugbox where they don't have to face the reality of their support for Biden. Like I don't even care if USPOL was given over to poo poo posters and we were given a different usnews thread were we can have thoughtful discussion about the news. I'm glad I was able to clarify. I think this little back and forth has helped me clarify my thoughts feelings on this in my head as well, so thanks for that. I think folks trying to justify annoying a bunch of other posters in a different thread with a different purpose and subject by saying they shouldn't have a "hugbox" is exactly the kind of in-group/out-group thinking that I think is causing the bad blood around here. I think that preventing the development of thinking like that is one reason why "assume good faith" is an important aspect of posting here. If one assumes good faith, then one does not think the poliwonks thread is so some posters get a hugbox, but rather it is for its stated purpose: to look at politics in a very fact-based and dispassionate way. Sodomy Hussein posted:I don't like Majorian as IK but this is because I feel that they try to win arguments with mod buttons, not because of their ideology, which like most people here is barely any different from mine. For what it's worth, I liked Majorian's reigning in the GE thread toward the end of its life so I'm a little biased in their favor. In general though, I think that it should be a rule that IKs and mods here don't probe people in discussions that they're also involved in. If somebody is actually doing something worthy of action, then another IK or mod will be able to tell so and take care of it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2021 21:28
|
|
|
I think Majorian is one of the only, if not the only, person in the moderation team who actually tries to moderate USPol rather than launching missile strikes at people in it (whether they deserve them or not) and should be cut a lot of slack for that. It's loving thankless and I think having a mod/IK who actually involves themselves rather than just policing ought to be the norm.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2021 21:36
|
|
|
Sodomy Hussein posted:I am thrilled to see people who self-exiled to C-SPAM come in to say that D&D doesn't tolerate a wide variety of views (their views). It's a self-evidently ridiculous position to anyone who reads D&D and C-SPAM. Yeah, the way Majorian wears his IK hat and regular poster hat interchangeably is pretty bad. Specifically, he has a habit of doing things like: 1. Jump headfirst into an ongoing conversation to make a claim, or challenge a claim that is made 2. When the other side pushes back, demand that it is they who must provide evidence 3. When asked why, declare that it is because his position is the self-evident one and it should be obvious why, and that the burden of proof therefore lies with the other side When a regular poster does this, you can just tell them to screw off, or ignore them. When Majorian does it, though, you can't do either because it might get you probated. This isn't the only way he abuses his mod powers, but it is the most common one, and he does it even in conversations he himself is not personally engaged in; he just sides with his ideological allies by demanding that their opponents put in the effort to refute the nonsensical/low-effort arguments that are presented. The Oldest Man posted:I think Majorian is one of the only, if not the only, person in the moderation team who actually tries to moderate USPol rather than launching missile strikes at people in it (whether they deserve them or not) and should be cut a lot of slack for that. It's loving thankless and I think having a mod/IK who actually involves themselves rather than just policing ought to be the norm. Sorry, but "they are at least trying!" is not an argument. People who are attempting to moderate a debate should not themselves be involved in it, because it is too open for abuse. And that abuse is exactly what we have been seeing. To be clear, I'm not saying mods and IKs should just read the thread and not post in it, but there are ways to post in a thread without engaging in contrarianism or picking winners and losers in an ongoing debate by holding implicit threats of probations over people's heads.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2021 21:56
|
|
|
I believe that I have argued with every mod, IK and admin that has posted in this thread and been fine. Don't blame other people for your cowardice.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2021 22:06
|
|
|
Gerund posted:
These are the type of inflammatory parting-shots that cause half the problems in USpol.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2021 22:08
|
|
|
Buddy if you aren't willing to put your tenbux on the line for what you believe in then you're a chickenhawk who is just here for style points & thats a fact, not a parting shot. And since I had time I want to add in this good post socialsecurity posted:I'm fine with mods in discussions as long as they are fair about it, they are people with opinions. Majoran typically does the "I don't have to quote sources but you do or you get probed" which is a problem and multiple times The Steve goes "no longer talk about this topic, btw everyone on this side of the topic is dumb whiny wrong babies" which cross the line into abuse. Both of things look annoying and people should tell them to knock it off when it happens.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2021 22:20
|
|
|
Slow News Day posted:When a regular poster does this, you can just tell them to screw off, or ignore them. When Majorian does it, though, you can't do either because it might get you probated. Generally, I think white-noise telling-off posts should be probatable in general. quote:Sorry, but "they are at least trying!" is not an argument. His point is less "at least he's trying", and more that he'll often try to defuse situations by hashing things out and asking that sources be provided when someone asserts X stance is common knowledge, rather than diving for the buttons. This is a good thing for an IK to be doing, even if certain perpetually outraged posters interpret this as him taking the 'side' of the person standing against Common Knowledge.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2021 22:23
|
|
|
Slow News Day posted:The reason this has been a major problem is because someone who looks down on a group of people (i.e. liberals) cannot be expected to moderate that group's debates in a fair and unbiased way, especially when themselves and/or their own ideological allies are involved in those debates. it's pretty easy to do actually
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2021 22:42
|
|
|
Looking at USPOL today when there's supposed to be a separate thread for talking about the impeachment hearings and seeing people still TV/IV'ing there leaves me with little confidence that the mods will actually enforce the thread split proposed
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2021 23:16
|
|
|
Booourns posted:Looking at USPOL today when there's supposed to be a separate thread for talking about the impeachment hearings and seeing people still TV/IV'ing there leaves me with little confidence that the mods will actually enforce the thread split proposed
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2021 00:00
|
|
|
Epinephrine posted:Beyond telling people to go to those threads, we need to have a hub thread people can bookmark where OPs/mods can advertise these new threads. That way we can bookmark it and, if there is a new tviv thread, we know because the hub thread has a new post. stickied threads. you've invented stickied threads.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2021 00:06
|
|
|
OJ MIST 2 THE DICK posted:stickied threads. no, i think they invented the "Post your New LP Threads in this New LP Thread Thread!" but for dnd threads
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2021 00:18
|
|
|
eke out posted:no, i think they invented the "Post your New LP Threads in this New LP Thread Thread!" but for dnd threads Actually that's a good idea.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2021 00:29
|
|
|
fool of sound posted:Actually that's a good idea. yeah it's legitimately good
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2021 00:31
|
|
|
Hot Topics: Things to argue about with idiots
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2021 01:00
|
|
|
Harold Fjord posted:Hot Topics: Things to argue about with idiots My Dow Chemical Romance
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2021 01:05
|
|
|
I think I need to clarify something about the PM that I posted earlier. I don't think there is any kind of general expectation that mods or IKs have to endure that kind of vitriol if it makes them feel uncomfortable. When I said that I thought dealing with those PMs was part of the position I meant that only insofar as each person's comfort level. The admins and Jeffrey have always been totally supportive. I have absolutely no doubt in my mind that if I had qued up a long probation or a ban for that post that it would have been accepted on my word alone. I made the call to handle the message that way because in my experiences with that poster I hadn't generally seen them post that way outside that PM. I also thought that based on the contents of the PM that it was clearly a raw subject and that while they had acted very inappropriately it wasn't necessarily a case of someone who was generally being overly hostile. I'm sorry if I made it seem like we mods are incapable of addressing abusive PMs.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2021 01:19
|
|
|
I generally try to stay out of forums drama/modding but lol, it is obvious that probes get handed on what the viewpoint is as opposed to how it is argued. A thread which gets 100 posts a minute, that is entirely volunteer staffed by the same community will naturally result into mods probating people based on whether or not they agree with them, unconsciously or consciously. It's the name of the game anywhere you go. This is a leftist oriented forum, so non-leftists (and leftists not left enough) will face more scrutiny. I've eaten more probes in the past few months then all previous ones combined, and I have always been an abrasive pedantic rear end in a top hat for over a decade here now to people who can't recognize a fact. It only started becoming a problem when those people were leftists who can't recognize a fact. Helldumping, personal attacks, intentional mischaracterizing or straight up manufacturing of the opposing argument, long-rear end posts, talking about posters and repeated topics are allowed for certain people and not allowed for others. Hell, even the stated reasons for the probes engage in this sometimes. It's the same in right-wing oriented forums, except there of course you get banned for life on having the wrong viewpoint even once. Personally I wish there was just a debate thread where you can have slapfights all you want unless it escalates to threats, doxxing, etc. And a non-slapfight thread where any sign of it is shut down with extreme prejudice. For my part I am solely here to argue. I got enough people I agree with on real life. And ultimately I don't give a poo poo about probes and neither does anyone else who wants to argue - and like it or not, it seems to be a substantial part of the thread participants. So let them engage in it. You would need a full time paid employee or few without any other agenda then salary to have arguments and impartial modding. DarkCrawler fucked around with this message at 01:31 on Jan 14, 2021 |
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2021 01:28
|
|
|
Helsing posted:I think I need to clarify something about the PM that I posted earlier. I don't think there is any kind of general expectation that mods or IKs have to endure that kind of vitriol if it makes them feel uncomfortable. When I said that I thought dealing with those PMs was part of the position I meant that only insofar as each person's comfort level. The admins and Jeffrey have always been totally supportive. I have absolutely no doubt in my mind that if I had qued up a long probation or a ban for that post that it would have been accepted on my word alone. I made the call to handle the message that way because in my experiences with that poster I hadn't generally seen them post that way outside that PM. I also thought that based on the contents of the PM that it was clearly a raw subject and that while they had acted very inappropriately it wasn't necessarily a case of someone who was generally being overly hostile. I'm sorry if I made it seem like we mods are incapable of addressing abusive PMs. As one of the posters that mentioned this specifically, thanks for further context, it makes sense. To me the main issue is less about mods capability to address abusive PMs, and more about how ensure there isn't a tacit acceptance of such abuse. Agreed that the PM sender sounded like it was a very traumatic subject so kudos to you for the compassion as well DarkCrawler posted:I generally try to stay out of forums drama/modding but lol, it is obvious that probes get handed on what the viewpoint is as opposed to how it is argued. A thread which gets 100 posts a minute, that is entirely volunteer staffed by the same community will naturally result into mods probating people based on whether or not they agree with them, unconsciously or consciously. I'm not a mod or IK and I'm not going review your rap sheet with a fine tooth comb, but I can absolutely guarantee you that almost all of your probes are because you confuse "just here to argue" with "here to inflame and provoke, over and over, with more and more words, and it never stops". I don't want to get sucked into one of these "arguments" so I'm not going to reply further, but have a little self awareness please
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2021 02:03
|
|
|
See, this presents a good philosophical question: what do you do when a poster with more than 20 probations (in dnd alone!) in the last three months comes into the mod feedback thread and proactively tells you that they have no interest in doing anything but argue and that no amount of probations will deter them
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2021 02:13
|
|
|
Sharks Eat Bear posted:As one of the posters that mentioned this specifically, thanks for further context, it makes sense. To me the main issue is less about mods capability to address abusive PMs, and more about how ensure there isn't a tacit acceptance of such abuse. Agreed that the PM sender sounded like it was a very traumatic subject so kudos to you for the compassion as well I thought that was enough self-awareness? As said, being inflaming/provoking is okay for some, not others. Never claimed I wasn't engaging in it myself. Already called myself an rear end in a top hat too! eke out posted:See, this presents a good philosophical question: what do you do when a poster with more than 20 probations (in dnd alone!) in the last three months comes into the mod feedback thread and proactively tells you that they have no interest in doing anything but argue and that no amount of probations will deter them If I am the first one to actually say this here, then it really is not me who is lacking self-awareness.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2021 02:19
|
|
|
eke out posted:See, this presents a good philosophical question: what do you do when a poster with more than 20 probations (in dnd alone!) in the last three months comes into the mod feedback thread and proactively tells you that they have no interest in doing anything but argue and that no amount of probations will deter them I dont like DarkCrawler as a poster, but I think Debate & Discussion is probably the place to be if you want to argue, and that's not necessarily a bad thing.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2021 02:22
|
|
|
Dnd is emphatically a place to argue about stuff, but the tradeoff here is that you are still expected to follow a handful of rules that keep things from spiraling out of control into huge shitstorm. If people want loosely moderated politics arguing and recreational shitposting, we have one of the premier places for that on the entire internet in cspam
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2021 02:31
|
|
|
Sharks Eat Bear posted:Taking a step even further back, I think the past few posts have demonstrated something that everyone needs to get out of their heads -- differences in ideology or political spectrum alignment aren't the driving factor in USPOL's or D&D's issues; just like coronavirus, lovely posting doesn't care about your ideology (don't think too hard about this analogy please). Comments like this (a number of people have essentially said the same thing) seem very strange and make me wonder if people are just defining "ideology" differently or something. There's more to ideology than how someone self-identifies politically. These arguments would not occur in the first place if not for actual differences in ideology/politics. For example, something like "how serious/important someone believes the events of 1/6 to be" is a judgement influenced by a person's ideology. Similarly "where should political focus be aimed" is also an ideological judgement. Two people who technically agree that climate change is bad or everyone should have healthcare can still differ ideologically based upon how important they believe those things are and how they perceive US politics as a potential vehicle for accomplishing specific goals. And even when it comes to stated goals, there are very obviously strong disagreements in certain areas (like foreign policy). People have different assumptions, and those assumptions are part of their political ideology. A lot of disagreements (possibly most) in this subforum stem from one side assuming that Democrats are opposed to left-wing goals by default (with there being a high burden of proof otherwise for specific individuals), with the other side believing that specific evidence must be provided for each individual politician or situation. The former are perceived as unreasonable and cynical by the latter, and the latter are perceived as gullible by the former. No argument is ever going to resolve that, because the disagreements stem from fundamental differences in worldview. Any arguments that take place just consist of people talking past one another.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2021 02:40
|
|
|
eke out posted:no, i think they invented the "Post your New LP Threads in this New LP Thread Thread!" but for dnd threads
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2021 04:01
|
|
|
Ytlaya posted:Comments like this (a number of people have essentially said the same thing) seem very strange and make me wonder if people are just defining "ideology" differently or something. There's more to ideology than how someone self-identifies politically. These arguments would not occur in the first place if not for actual differences in ideology/politics. I’m not saying I don’t think ideology drives disagreements, I’m saying I think it’s a mistake to assume that most or all of USPOL’s issues are the fault of the libs, or the lefties, or the disagreements between libs and lefties. I read (and like to think participate in) these disagreements frequently, and mostly find a lot of value in them if even the posters involved don’t end up reaching a tidy consensus. If this subforum didn’t have this type of ideological tension, buttressed by a general consensus that extreme conservative/reactionary views have no place here, then I don’t think I’d read it. I’ll only speak for myself — I agree that Dems are generally opposed to left wing goals, but I also don’t let that assumption excuse shoddy debate, such as sharing mis- or dis-information just because it supports the assumption and will provoke outrage, using tu quoque fallacies to score points, or treating anyone that doesn’t share this assumption as hopelessly naive, stupid, etc. I don’t think every leftist here does this, or that no liberals do, and we’re all human and will fall prey to motivated reasoning at times even if we try not to. But to handwave it all away by saying “it’s just irreconcilable ideological differences!” is frankly lazy and wrong. And it’s important that it’s wrong — I would posit that very, very few people have immovable ideologies that are impervious to argument. And honestly if you THINK you have an immovable ideology that can’t be swayed by argument, then seems like what you really have is dogma. But I think many of us here have ideologies that are rapidly moving left since the Obama admin (a massive generalization, no doubt), and some of us are probably further on that journey than others. For the sake of the posters who are not as far on the journey, I really hate the idea of coopting an “owning the libs” ethos because of how thoroughly the GOP has poisoned that well. Will strong, rigorous argumentation lead to a moment of clarity that converts centrists to leftists overnight? Of course not. Maybe I’m projecting my own experience too far, but I’m sure I’ve heard a number of other posters share similar stories, that the discourse on D&D has had a not insignificant impact on my political views over the scale of months and years. (Which is easy to poke fun at through the lens of ironically detached SA shitposting, but I’ve already hitched my wagon to full blown earnest-posting ITT and there’s no turning back now.)
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2021 05:10
|
|
|
I have some notion that a few years back there was a general loosening of D&D rules announced in the rule thread or the US News/USPOL thread. Was this actually a thing? What's actually become of that? I have been thinking that between that and merging US News with USPOL accounts for a lot of how we got here today. Am I misremembering something here?
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2021 05:43
|
|
|
Very surprised to see people complaining about Majorian; he is much less heavy-handed than the other IKs. Handsome Ralph in particular is extremely brazen about probating people he disagrees with. If anything, Majorian's problem is that he has too light of a touch. Maybe it's because he knows that any probation he makes will end up in a feedback thread. Edit to focus on the systemic issues with USPol: Owlofcreamcheese posted:It's not morally wrong for him to have an opinion of what is important far off the groups but at some point why would it make sense for someone to mod a forum he has incompatible values with? In my opinion, the solution is either to 1: partition the thread and give the aforementioned posters a private reserve to post in, or 2: ignore everything posted itt and accept that despite the volume of reports, USPol is actually in decent shape. T. Bombastus fucked around with this message at 09:29 on Jan 14, 2021 |
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2021 09:07
|
|
|
T. Bombastus posted:Maybe it's because he knows that any probation he makes will end up in a feedback thread. Rules-lawyering in qcs should get the OP hellbanned. There’s my quality suggestion for the day.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2021 09:30
|
|
|
Herstory Begins Now posted:Dnd is emphatically a place to argue about stuff, but the tradeoff here is that you are still expected to follow a handful of rules that keep things from spiraling out of control into huge shitstorm. If people want loosely moderated politics arguing and recreational shitposting, we have one of the premier places for that on the entire internet in cspam
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2021 12:38
|
|
|
It would be cool if the USPol thread was started anew every month.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2021 14:17
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 10, 2024 17:56 |
|
|
T. Bombastus posted:ignore everything posted itt and accept that despite the volume of reports, USPol is actually in decent shape. It really is, frankly. I think it's worth having this discussion because it IS obviously a popular thread and anything can be improved. That being said, I read nearly every page of the drat thing and while there are occasionally slapfight flareups and himbo eruptions, I mostly get exactly what I want out of it. It's like 85-90% good and useful and it would be a shame to destroy that to chase some imagined ideal posting state
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2021 15:29
|
|
